- Saturday, 11 April 2026
The Curtailment Of Reproductive Rights
Megha Chand
The recent United States Supreme Court (USSC) decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) has removed the constitutional protection afforded to the right to access abortion. This has once again re-ignited the following debate: ‘pro-choice’ v. ‘pro-life.’
Being pro-choice is typically associated with preserving the autonomy of individuals to make their own decisions in regards to their sexual and reproductive health. In contrast, ‘pro-lifers’ tend to proclaim that they are protecting the innate value of human beings - they believe foetuses in the womb deserve special consideration because they cannot protect themselves.
However, it might be more accurate to label them ‘pro-birth’ because they do not appear particularly concerned with the actual welfare of human beings.
Surely if they believed in the innate value of human life, their efforts would be best served in advocating for the 1.6 million American children on the streets. This number has rises to roughly 150 million across the world - and this is likely an underestimation. Children already on this earth are facing dire conditions because there is a lack of provisions to support and care for them.
Additionally, if the ‘pro-life’ side of the debate truly valued human life, it would not advocate to strip individuals of their reproductive autonomy. Making abortion illegal only forces the individual to face death or serious injury in ‘backstreet’ abortions or to go through unwanted pregnancies.
This would result in children being born where they are not wanted. Wouldn’t ‘pro-lifers’ want to avoid this outcome, especially if they truly believe each ‘innocent’ life should be preserved? After all, restrictions on abortion do not reduce their number, but instead they increase the number of unsafe abortions, resulting in a greater number of avoidable deaths.
The USSC can challenge and even ‘strike down laws’ passed by legislative assemblies, if they are not in accordance with the Constitution. The Roe v. Wade decision was criticised by congressmen who saw it as ‘judicial activism.’ This is because the court had effectively taken matters into their own hands to grant constitutional protection to the right to access abortion even though this issue had not been through any legislative assembly.
However, this decision reduced casualties related to pregnancy and childbirth due to illegal abortion from 17 per cent in 1965 to less than 0.3 per cent in 2013. Additionally, women were able to pursue further educational and economic opportunities that were difficult to realise pre-Roe v. Wade because they were now able to control their reproductive lives. At the time, this arguably helped liberate women from simply being in the domestic sphere, as they could take control of their bodies.
Now, the USSC has ruled that it is time to ‘return’ this issue to the American people. We must question whether returning the issue ‘to the people’ would actually allow individuals most affected by this ruling to have a say.
Arguably, due to the overrepresentation of white males in legislative roles in the US - only 27 per cent of the US Senate are women and 11 per cent are people of colour - the interests of those most at risk will not be represented. Safe abortions are highly important for young women, primarily those from a lower socio-economic background, with Black women most at risk of death from illegal abortions.
As over half of the states have already indicated a move towards banning or restricting abortion despite 6 in 10 Americans stating that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, it raises the question of whether overruling Roe v. Wade was wise.
After all, states already had the discretion to restrict abortion. For example, in Texas, the ‘fetal heartbeat bill’ made abortions illegal once the heartbeat could be detected - the only exception being the case of a medical emergency.
An ‘absolute right to abortion’ was guaranteed only in the first trimester with certain restrictions for non-medical reasons. The extension of state control in the recent overruling Roe v. Wade is arguably a victory for ‘pro-lifers.’
Recently, an attempt to incorporate the Roe v. Wade ruling into US law, via the Women’s Health Protection Act, failed, despite various protests by American citizens advocating for the right of individuals to choose abortion. Individual citizens are expressing a strong desire
to liberalise access to abortion - going even further than the protection that Roe v. Wade had previously provided. The inclinations of the American public are in accordance with the growing global trend towards legalising abortion. Over 50 countries have sought to decriminalise abortion, or increase existing access to abortion in the past few decades. This includes historically anti-abortion countries such as Mexico and Colombia.
Similarly, in India, the pro-choice movement has made a small victory: a minor girl was permitted to undergo abortion at 16 weeks. Indian law legalised abortion in 1951 under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTPA) with certain exceptions. This ruling essentially expands the circumstances under which pregnant, unmarried women can seek abortions.
Arguably, the High Court’s ruling has protected reproductive autonomy - making it inseparable with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, entitled ‘Protection of life and personal liberty.’
In Nepal's constitution, under s38(2) ‘Women’s Rights’, every woman has the ‘right to safe…reproductive health,’ and on paper, Nepal’s abortion laws are one of the most liberal in the world. Abortions can technically be granted ‘on request’ up to 12 weeks of gestation; in cases of rape or incest, this limit is extended up to 18 weeks, or 4 months. The most interesting thing to note is the availability of abortion at any given time if the pregnancy is
dangerous to the ‘woman’s life or physical or mental health.’ Abortion was legalised due to the high rates of maternal mortality, which reached up to 539 per 100,000 live births. Now,
legalised abortion ensures that women can avoid harm to their lives when they seek to avert pregnancy.
Essentially, these laws protect the female right to reproductive health and autonomy. Spousal consent - which reinforces the idea that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves - is not required. Thus, legalising abortion in Nepal has provided women with the opportunity to take control of their own reproductive health, instead of being unfairly restricted. However, there is a need to expand the availability of safe abortions in
areas all across the country, particularly in rural and underdeveloped places. Additionally, raising awareness on safe abortion practices and training healthcare professionals can be a small step towards liberating women and preventing unnecessary deaths. After all, even if progressive laws and rulings are made, we should still question: why are women’s bodies and rights so heavily politicised and controlled?
Due to the pervasive geopolitical influence of the United States, abortion has once again captured the world’s attention. Various countries may re-examine their abortion laws, and hopefully go in the opposite direction of the US. The impact within the US borders will be quick and direct, since almost half the states are looking to ban abortion.
This will primarilyimpact women who are young and poor. Wealthy women will always be able to afford good healthcare. However, for women who do not have the resources to travel to other states or
countries to get abortion, they will have to risk their lives with ‘backstreet’ abortions.
Therefore, the recent overturning of the constitutional right to abortion will impact socio-political and economic debates and realities in the USA. This comes at a time where other patriarchal societies - such as Mexico, Colombia and India - are taking steps to expand access to abortion. For individuals who require abortions, this is yet another obstacle that could claim countless lives.
(The author is an LLB Student at London School of Economics and Political Science.)
How did you feel after reading this news?
-original-thumb.jpg)
